LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/uday-pratap-thakur-and-anr-vs-the-state-of-bihar-and-ors-20230428/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Uday Pratap Thakur and Anr. vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
28 April 2023
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 3155 of 2023
Result
Dismissed
Bench
M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
Citation
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 530 : 2023 INSC 461
Supreme Court Reports [2023] 4 S.C.R. 530 : 2023 INSC 461
Headnote

Service Law : Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013 : r. 5(v) – Pensionary benefits – Computation of, of work charged employees, whose services were subsequently regularized – Counting of the period of work charged services – Entire service rendered as work charged under the work charged establishment, if to be counted and/or considered for the determination of the amount of pension – Held: Work charged employees are not appointed on a substantive post – They are not appointed after due process of selection and as per the recruitment rules – Thus, the services rendered as work charged cannot be counted for the purpose of pension / quantum of pension – However, at the same time, after rendering of service as work charged for number of years and thereafter when their services have been regularized, they cannot be denied the pension on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service for pension – Thus, the service rendered as work charged after their services have been regularized under the regularization scheme, would be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for pension only as per r. 5(v) of the 2013 Rules.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

Read the full headnote (4 more paragraphs)

HELD: 1.1 Rule 5(v) of the Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013 as such can be said to be beneficial to such work charged employees, whose services have been regularized subsequently. As per Rule 5(v), even if the minimum requirement of 10 years of service (qualifying service) for pension is not met, in that case also, the service rendered as a work charged to be added for qualifying service for pension. Therefore, the efforts have been made by the State Government to see that after rendering services for number of years as work charged, and thereafter, their services have been regularized, they may not be denied the pension on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service for pension. It also further provides that the benefits like pension & gratuity shall be counted by giving one year advantage against the five years services as work–charged employee. Therefore, Rule 5(v) is beneficial also in favour of such work charged employees, whose services have been regularized subsequently, and they may not be deprived of the pension on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service for pension. The denying of pension after rendering service as work charged for number of years on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service can be said to be unfair and illegal and can be said to be exploitation. Therefore, to make such work charged employees eligible for pension, Rule 5(v) provides that if any work charged employee, whose services have been regularized under the Rules, 2013, is short of qualifying service, to the extent of such shortage of qualifying service, the services rendered as work charged to be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for pension. Under the circumstances, the Larger Bench of the High Court rightly held that for the purpose of pension, only such period from the work charged tenure would be added for making the service of an employee, who has been regularized to qualify him for pension. [Para 6.1][537-E-H; 538-A-B]

1.2. The submission that their entire services rendered as work charged should be considered and/or counted for the purpose of pension/quantum of pension is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. If the same is accepted, in that case, it would tantamount to regularizing their services from the initial appointment as work charged. There is always a difference and distinction between a regular employee appointed on a substantive post and a work charged employee working under work charged establishment. The work charged employees are not appointed on a substantive post. They are not appointed after due process of selection and as per the recruitment rules. Therefore, the services rendered as work charged cannot be counted for the purpose of pension/quantum of pension. However, at the same time, after rendering of service as work charged for number of years and thereafter when their services have been regularized, they cannot be denied the pension on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service for pension. That is why, the service rendered as work charged after their services have been regularized under the regularization scheme, namely, the Rules, 2013 and the Circular shall be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for pension only as per Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013. [Para 6.2, 7][538-C-F; 539-C]

Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2019)

10 SCC 516 : [2019] 11 SCR 1075 – held inapplicable.

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment(s) and order(s)passed by the High Court of judicature at Patna in respective letters patent appeals, the respective original writ petitioners – work charged employees, whose services were subsequently regularized as per the Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2013”), have preferred the present appeals. 2. For the sake of convenience, Civil Appeal Nos. 3158-3159 of 2023 (Maheshwar Pandey Vs. St
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →